Re: [tied] h1,h2,h3 in Albanian

----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Ryan" <proto-language@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 1:51 PM
Subject: Re: [tied] h1,h2,h3 in Albanian


> Richard, perhaps this can go out _after_ XMAS.
>
> Merry Christmas, by the way. In my effort to respond humorously to
> "ball-bat swinging mimosa", I went too far. I consider your reaction quite
> reasonable and tempered.
>
>
> Patrick
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Abdullah Konushevci" <akonushevci@...>
> To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 10:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [tied] h1,h2,h3 in Albanian
>
>
> On 12/20/05, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:
> >
> > alexandru_mg3 wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> The root of 'lead, drive'
> > is *h2ag^-, not *h1ag^-. If it were the latter, it would have no o-grade
> > derivatives like Gk. ógmos < *h2og^-mo- (Skt. ájma-).
>
>
> In "The American Heritage Dictionary of Indo-European roots' by Calvert
> Watkins (second edition, page 1) you will find: *ag- (Oldest form *H1ag'-)
>
> ***
> Patrick:
>
> Piotr will probably have a different explanation for ógmos but what can it
> hurt to give you mine?
>
> I believe the 'laryngeals' had, but the time of PIE, devolved into simply
> <?> and <h>.
>
> In this particular word, we have <?>, which, I believe, _also_ lengthened
> and hence preserved the quality of the _pre-_Ablaut vowels.
>
> In this case, *<?age> became*<?agY-> then *<a:g^-> in, at least, satem
> dialects.
>
> However, lengthened vowels are inherently unstable. As long as the
> lengthened vowel contributes to semantic differentiation, has a semantic
> 'load', it will remain. If there was no *<Vg^-> against which it could be
> contrasted, it was liable to be reduced to simple *<ag^-> which, when all
> short vowels were reduced to the Ablaut-vowel (*e/*o/*Ø), would join the
> vast majority becoming in initial stress-accented position <é> hence
> *<ég->.
>
> When the stress-accent was removed from *<é>, it became *<o>, hence
> *<og^-mé-> when what is normally reconstructed as -*mo was added.
>
> At some subsequent time, the stress-accent, which had shifted rightward as
> new syllables extended a root, was retracted wherever possible to the
> root-syllable; however the process which had transformed *<é> into *<o>
> was no longer operational, and we get *<óg^-mo->.
>
> The continued existence of *<a:g^-> is some dialects meant that it was
> available for what speakers might consider useful contrasts; after the
> retirement of the process through which short vowels became the Ablaut
> vowel, length in *<a:g^-> became non-functional - long or short, it would
> remain *<a> to contrast against *<e> and *<o>. It is not at all certain
> that ancient PIE speakers would have recognized a formal relationship
> between *<a:g^-> and *<eg^->/*<og^->; and, in my opinion, doubtful.
>
> I propose a general linguistic principle: where effort or time bears no
> functional load, the effort will be reduced if possible. If *<a:> (*<aa>)
> communicates no more than *<a>, *<aa> will be reduced to *<a>. This is
> devolution as contrasted with degeneration, as, for example, the reduction
> of pre-PIE voiceless affricates to voiceless stops: *<ts> -> <*t>, merging
> with extant *<t> since the voiceless affricates bore a semantic load.
>
> I hope this is not too bizarre for you.
>
>
> ***
>
>
>
>
> <snip>